Talk:Refracktion

Misrepresentation of ASA complaint result.

I think the article currently misrepresents the results of the complaint. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In what way? It seems to match pretty closely with the referenced BBC report. Pburka (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It gives only the anti-fracking result that 'Six of 18 specific complaints were upheld, with a total of 21 breaches of the ASA code being identified' but does not mention the other side of the coin, where we have, 'However, 11 of the 18 controversial passages identified in the brochure, sent to households in Lancashire, were deemed to be acceptable'. The source also has "pleased that the ASA has also validated the majority of points made in Cuadrilla's leaflet", and "important to note the ASA has confirmed that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely".

I think a more even handed summary of the process is called for. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'd read "6 of 18" as if it were already damning with faint praise. I suggest adding a sentence mentioning those points to the paragraph. Pburka (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it is like the difference between half-empty and half-full. I will make some changes. Let me know what you think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)